At Forbes.com, Nathan Lewis reviews George Gilder’s argument for stable money in his latest book, The Scandal of Money: Why Wall Street Recovers but the Economy Never Does.
Writes Lewis: “Money, Gilder argues, is not only a medium of exchange, it is a medium for the transmission of economic information. The information inherent in prices, or profit and loss, guides all activity in the market economy. When this information becomes corrupted – when there is so much noise in the transmission medium that the signal becomes lost – then gross errors take place.”
Continue reading at Forbes.com.
An article at breitbart.com — which accompanies an interview between George Gilder with Breitbart News Daily — examines the role that currency trading has played in the downward spiral of the U.S. economy, and the popular trend toward socialist solutions:
“Gilder agreed that the average American understands that the system is broken and credited that understanding with the rise of the current populist revolt, most likely including the rise of Donald Trump as a Republican presidential contender. He cited currency trading as a key problem underlying the issue.
In a few days the Bureau of International Settlements is going to estimate the total amount of currency trading. The last time they did it three years ago and currency trading came out twenty-six times bigger than all GDPs in the world, seventy-three times as big as trade in all goods and services in the world and hundreds of times bigger than all trade in the stock markets – $5.4 trillion a day in currency trading and out of it, we don’t even get a measuring stick that can accurately value currencies. … Ten banks do 77% of all this trading and they can make money out of it but we don’t even get a measuring stick to gauge our savings, or expand our investments, or evaluate our opportunities.
Gilder’s concern is that the above system would turn America toward socialism.”
Read the rest at breitbart.com.
A note from Discovery Institute President Steven J. Buri
I remember a Seattle Weekly article circa 2000—around the time that I was hired as Executive Director—that described Discovery Institute as a think tank where people “sit around a big table and think really hard.” Needless to say, the article was neither friendly, nor indicative of the role that think tanks really play in policy development. It missed a bigger point, too. Discovery Institute is more than a think tank. Continue reading